What Linux needs 13540

Daveman750 What are you smoking? Linux, harder to administrate than *Windows*?!

The goal there is to have all available driver modules available OOTB. Let's make third party driver installation a thing of the past, shall we? While I realize that the everyone would like There's nothing preventing a company from releasing a binary-only kernel module and driver--plenty do, like Nvidia or XGI.

This has nothing to do with how Linux handles binary-only drivers. Those disks include *Windows* drivers. And there's already a widely used project called ndiswrapper that provides Windows network interface device driver compatibility on GNU-Linux. It is, however, a very dark road to take. Better to just encourage Linux support by the vendors--they can release binary-only driver modules, and we don't have to deal with poo like ndiswrapper (I'm not meaning to denegrate the developers that work on Ndiswrapper--but it's not exactly the easiest or most integrated Linux project around).

How is this better than plugging in device and (depending on the hardware) cycling the power?

This is the exact opposite of where we need to go.

This reduces download times, increases modularity, and makes patching a hell of a lot easier. That, and it doesn't really harm ease of use at all.

I'd still rather not download GTK two dozen times because it gets packaged with any application that depends on it. Yeah, I have plenty of bandwidth and it probably wouldn't add *too* much time, it's still an annoyance that is completely unnessesary.

There's not much in GNU-Linux that is staticly linked anymore--that's why dependency hell existed, and why advanced package managers came around. GNU-Linux handles libraries much differently than Windows does, what works for Windows is a bad idea here. Besides, if you like the Windows architecture... why don't you just use Windows?

It doesn't even help ease of use. How does 'apt-get install mozilla-firefox' get any easer with your method?